The curve continues to flatten, which is overall good news, though the mortality rate continues its march upwards.
The federal government will stop paying for Covid-19 testing sites on Friday, so data will be even more unreliable after that.
Edit: The three-day moving average chart was wrong for about an hour. It has been corrected. My apologies.
The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Confused
How are you computing these three day averages?
32,455 is the raw increase in cases between the 8th and 9th of April.
The only figure that corresponds with a rolling three day arithmetic mean increase from the raw case numbers posted is the value for the 4th of April, and that includes the artificially high April 3rd/4th increase…
Stormcrow
I expect deaths will continue to rise at a faster rate than confirmed cases. Probably until well after the active case numbers peak.
If you assume the death rate is a fixed percentage of the case number (which is almost certainly over-simplistic, but I’ll use it as a first approximation), the confirmed case curve and the death curve will have the same shape, but the death curve will lag behind by 1-2 weeks.
Given an epidemic growth rate that’s slowing overall, that means that deaths will increase faster than confirmed cases, until the point where the epidemic tails out.
gnokgnoh
@Confused, good catch. I was being too clever by half, by smoothing out the data on April 5, due to the late data pull. The actual data in the graph below the averages are not corrected, so they don’t correlate. In addition, I grabbed the wrong figure for today’s average, which would not have been affected by my smoothing efforts.
I believe Ian has already corrected the post.
gnokgnoh
Mark Pontin
CDC now estimates COV19 Ro at 5.7 (!) with no social distancing or lockdown —
‘High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2’
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
Stormcrow
Mark:
How did you get CDC affiliation from that article?
The data the authors used is reportedly from the Chinese CDC, but the only thing I saw about author affiliation was “Los Alamos”.
Mark Pontin
@ Stormcrow –
How did I get U.S. CDC affiliation? By the fact that it’s the U.S. CDC website, if you look —
https://www.cdc.gov/about/default.htm
Thus, on a page About CDC Leadership, there’s U.S. CDC head Robert Redfield —
https://www.cdc.gov/about/leadership.htm
Mark Pontin
And to be absolutely clear the magazine where the study appeared, EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES JOURNAL, is a peer-reviewed journal published by CDC in the U.S. and the authors are at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Los Alamos.
Stormcrow
@ Mark
Your second reply makes sense only if you equate publishing entity with author affiliation.
But your first one is simply a non-sequitur. We already know the director of the CDC, one Robert Redfield, is a Trump-appointed crackpot. But unless he’s got time on his hands and a yen for swimming in boiling water, he probably doesn’t meddle with journal articles published on the CDC’s website.
Mark Pontin
Stormcrow wrote: “Your second reply makes sense only if you equate publishing entity with author affiliation.”
To repeat: EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES JOURNAL, is a peer-reviewed journal published by CDC in the U.S. and the authors are at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Los Alamos.
Peer-reviewed under the auspices of the CDC and published by them — what about that do you do not wish to understand?
“But your first one is simply a non-sequitur. We already know the director of the CDC, one Robert Redfield, is a Trump-appointed crackpot.”
No, it’s not a non-sequitur. You seemed to wish to promote the theory that the paper was published by some weird, alternate-world Chinese CDC, or something similarly ridiculous, based on two of the authors having Chinese names and the fact that they used data from Wuhan, where the COV19 disease broke out.
I was establishing it was the regular U.S. CDC with the known American players, like Redfield as chief — that’s all, without reference to the man’s Trump-appointed proclivities, such as they may be and as you seem to wish to bring into the picture.
Again, what is it about the study that you do not wish to have understood?
Seriously: grow up.